Libertarians: Chirping Sectaries

David O. McKay Library, Brigham Young University ^ | 11-09-06 | Russell Kirk

[CSM]

"In a time requiring long views and self-denial, alliance with a faction founded upon doctrinaire selfishness would be absurd-and practically damaging."

Is the author really advocating collectivism as the answer to Conservative's lack of victory?

[CSM]

"Criminals are the problem. The most destructive, most value-destroying criminals are politicians and bureaucrats."

I agree, and that is why I am almost to the point where I think that this country no longer deserves my vote. I am very close to just letting it go down in flames......

[JCEccles]

Is the author really advocating collectivism as the answer to Conservative's lack of victory?

Everyone with a brain knows libertarian anarchy is the way to go.

No government? No problem!

Hu-yuck!

[CSM]

"The Founding Fathers were conservatives, not libertarians."

True. But where is today's Conservative to turn?

[JCEccles]

I have seen little evidence that any (libertarian) poster on this thread has the slightest idea who the author, Russell Kirk, is.

That's pathetic. One might expect such appalling ignorance from liberals, but not from supposedly stalwart conservatives.

Professing to admire conservatism and not knowing who Russell Kirk is, is like professing to admire objectivism and not knowing who Ayn Rand is.

[CSM]

Sure, there is only 2 choices. Anarchy or Collectivism. No other state is possible.

[Wolfie]

For some people, the notion that Government exists only to protect our rights, and not to impose someone else's morality on us, IS anarchy.

[tacticalogic]

The Founding Fathers were conservatives, not libertarians.

Therein lies a paradox that produces no end of misunderstanding and friction in these debates.

The Founding Fathers were revolutionaries. A conservative revolutionary is a blatant contradiction in terms.

[wintertime]

The cosmos of the libertarian is an arid loveless realm, a “round prison.” “I am, and none else beside me,” says the libertarian. “We are made for cooperation, like the hands, like the feet,” replies the conservative, in the phrases of Marcus Aurelius.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The author is confusing Ayn Rand's atheistic Objectivism with Libertarianism.

I am a long time member of the Libertarian Party, yet I am very religious and very active in my church. Obviously, I have found a way to resolve the "made for cooperation" aspect of the Conservative with the "I am me.." philosophy of the Libertarian.

It begins with God.

God has granted us free will to do good or evil. Each freely made choice has consequences. God does not FORCE anyone to be either good or bad.

So...as a Libertarian, and in contrast to the Conservative, I choose to advocate for a government that does not force citizens to be good or bad. I choose not to force other people to fit my anointed image of goodness.

My religious belief drives my cooperation and feeling of charity. My personal behavior has had enormously beneficial consequences for me and my family. I attempt to persuade others that a testimony in the Lord will reward them and their families, but I will not advocate government force.

If I could persuade others that God lives and to adopt the beliefs of my religion, we would see less single motherhood, drug addicted parents, gambling bankruptcies, sexually transmitted diseases would disappear, and many other social ills.

But,,,just as God allows us to feel the full consequences of our personal behavior, so should government. That does mean that single moms would be putting their kids in charitable orphanages and not living on the dole. Those without insurance would be getting medical care at charity clinics and hospitals. It does mean that drunks and drug addicts might find themselves living on the street because they have totally worn out any social capital they have had with their families. Sexually transmitted diseases would not get any research funds from the government, and neither would cancer...etc.

What about abortion?

Well....as a religious Libertarian, I believe that we all have a fundamental right to life. If life begins at conception, then that life has a fundamental right to protection from the moment of conception. That means that if there is an abortion, it is because the pregnancy could mean a **serious** threat of death, or very **serious** disability for the mother. Only at this point would the life of the mother be granted more rights than that of the unborn.

[wintertime]

For some people, the notion that Government exists only to protect our rights, and not to impose someone else's morality on us, IS anarchy.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Society must maintain the following to survive:

1) Security against attack and invasion by foreign troops and/or refugees.

2) Honest courts and police to enforce contracts and to punish criminals.

3)Profound respect for and protection of private property.

4) A moral citizenry with the personal and individually accepted good will and honesty to make the above happen.

The above is NOT anarchy. Libertarians are NOT anarchists.

Having a government that mico-manages personal behavior that does not harm or destroy another's person or property, it not necessary to maintain an vibrant and orderly society or nation.

And,,,It is possible to be religious and believe the above. I and my family are living proof.

[MEGoody]

Some Libertarians oppose drug legalization or don't mention it altogether.

Perhaps, but they must be few and far between, because I've never had one agree with me that keeping drugs illegal is a good thing.

But any objections to legalizing drugs falls flat when you consider the current kick-down-the-doors failure of a drug policy.

If this is truly your yard-stick for what should or shouldn't be legal, then we should legalize murder since the policy against murder doesn't seem to be working.

[steve-b]

"We are made for cooperation, like the hands, like the feet," replies the conservative, in the phrases of Marcus Aurelius.

VOLUNTARY cooperation is, of course, basic to libertarian society. As for the other kind, the quote needs a slight correction:

"We are made for cooperation, like the hands, like the feet," replies the conservative collectivist, in the phrases of Marcus Aurelius Hillary Clinton.

Really, much of Kirk's other writings reveal him to be much too intelligent to write this sort of twaddle. I wish I knew what motivated him to prostitute his mind in this manner, or what psychological quirk impelled him to shut down his intellect when the subject turned to libertarianism.

[steve-b]

Both were deeply suspicious of people who think they have the perfect, logical system on which to reorganize society, so neither would have had much truck with today's libertarians

Since libertarianism is an organizing principle for government, not society, I fail to see the relevance of this observation. (A libertarian society is what arises organically when the government is restrained from interfering -- if anything, it is more, not less, in accordance with Burke's view than a society upon which the conservative version of social engineering is imposed by the state.)

[steve-b]

He denounced automobiles as mechanical jacobins, sacrificing real community on the altar of industrialization.

Automobiles arose out of the problem-solving efforts of people who hoped to serve both their fellows and themselves, and the widespread adoption thereof is precisely the sort of "organic" evolution of society that Burke described. Kirk's complaint is thus inconsistent with his professed philosophy -- worse, it is itself a utopian "vision of the anointed" claim that society should be (forcibly?) reordered to fit a romantic ideal.

[steve-b]

What binds society together? The libertarians reply that the cement of society (so far as they will endure any binding at all) is self-interest, closely joined to the nexus of cash payment.

This is a rather frail straw man. The libertarian view that interpersonal relationships are properly based on voluntery agreement is not necessarily joined to "cash payment" (most human relationships are obviously based on other rewards).

As for it being based on "self-interest", this is true in the sense in which every political or social principle is based on self-interest (libertarians think people would be better off if they followed libertarian recommendations, conservatives think people would be better off if they followed conservative recommendations, marxists think people would be better off if they followed marxist recommendations, etc). Thus, Kirk's statement is technically correct, but trivially so and useless in weighing the merits and demerits of libertarianism.

Again, my other readings show that Kirk knows better than this, and I simply don't see what caused his usual level of argument to sink to that normally found at a bar or (present company excepted) on some Internet argument forum.

[steve-b]

As for it being based on "self-interest", this is true in the sense in which every political or social principle is based on self-interest (libertarians think people would be better off if they followed libertarian recommendations, conservatives think people would be better off if they followed conservative recommendations, marxists think people would be better off if they followed marxist recommendations, etc).

I would like to slightly modify the "every" claim. Some political philosophies are in fact based on cynical self-interest (e.g. Nazis don't claim that everyone would be better off if they subscribed to Naziism -- they believe that the Aryans would be better off, the untermenschen would be worse off, and that's simply the way it should be).

This caveat does not really change the underlying point, since libertarianism does not claim that some people are and deserve to be more equal than others.

[steve-b]

"In a time requiring long views and self-denial, alliance with a faction founded upon doctrinaire selfishness would be absurd-and practically damaging."
Is the author really advocating collectivism as the answer to Conservative's lack of victory?

As I noted upthread, there are two types of self-denial (voluntary self-denial in order to gain greater rewards later or to meet one's obligations, and involuntary self-denial imposed so that others can loot what rightfully belongs to you). Inasmuch as the former is perfectly consistent with libertarianism, the author can only be referring to, and implicitly praising, the latter.

[steve-b]

Oh, puh-leeze. As explained upthread, the reason the first few dozen posts are filled with snark rather than discussion of Russell Kirk is not ignorance of the latter, but rather dismissal of the original poster as a troll.

[MarkDel]

Dumb_Ox,

Sorry again for the silly response I posted to your original comments to me. At 2 AM EST, my mind was not working too well, and I believe I confused Russell Kirk with Robert Nozick if you are familiar with his work.

If I recall correctly from reading Kirk in college (20-plus years ago) he was a big believer in the idea that custom and tradition, manifested as culture, were the foundation of any rational society. And since he was a big believer in Natural Law and the idea that religion was the driving force behind culture, he would naturally have disdain for ideological labels. Correct me if I'm wrong on that since you seem to have a better recollection of Kirk than I do.

If my reading of Kirk is correct, then I would argue that his version of Conservatism was pretty much rejected by the vast majority of the people in the United States in the post-FDR era. I think modern Conservatism has taken the best of what Kirk had to offer, which I would argue is the strong reliance on Property Rights as the ultimate expression of Freedom and a healthy respect for the concept of Natural Law, while ignoring what seems to be the weakness...the idea that class differences and convention were static and necessary aspects of a just society. The so-called "Fusion" concept I would guess.

[Dumb_Ox]

Automobiles arose out of the problem-solving efforts of people who hoped to serve both their fellows and themselves, and the widespread adoption thereof is precisely the sort of "organic" evolution of society that Burke described. Kirk's complaint is thus inconsistent with his professed philosophy -- worse, it is itself a utopian "vision of the anointed" claim that society should be (forcibly?) reordered to fit a romantic ideal.

This is naive. In the first place, the automobile was the solution to a problem many people didn't even know they had. In some cases, demand had to be stimulated by undermining what was previously a satisfactory status quo.

Second, the spread of the automobile was enabled by massive government spending on highways and roads.(and probably oil subsidies too.)

In urban areas, living "organic" neighborhoods were bulldozed to pave the way for rootless commuters and interstate commerce. Those neighborhoods were generally chosen because they had the least politically organized communities--in other words, they were people not just least likely to resist governmental action against their interests, but also the least likely to agitate for government action in their interests. The result of such action was, in effect though perhaps not in intention, ethnic cleansing.

I find it sad that some libertarians are pushing for toll roads, when the road system itself is often the result of raw governmental power. Their criticisms do not go deep enough.